Explain the IL Constitution to me....

[Stoli&Cranberry]

as far as it's right to bear arms laws.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

What does "Subject only to the police power" mean?

The rest of the section, "the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed," should mean just that, but there is a confusion in its meaning when it says "police power" and then "individual citizen".

Furthermore, it is obvious that when the state of Illinois and the individual cities within Illinois restrict or ban firearms from law-abiding citizens that they are not only infringing on their rights, but also the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution and even the Illinois consitution when it refers to "the individual citizen."

This also confuses me. Why have a United States Constitution if it can be plainly ignored by the individual states that rewrites and sets it's own consititutional laws? Why does the United States government ignore the fact that individual states, like Illinois, infringe on the rights of United States citizens constitutional rights?

 

[Don Gwinn]

1. First of all, keep looking for a working definition of what it means by "subject only to the police power" or any lawyer or state official willing to stake anything on any definition of the limits of "the police power." Not saying you won't find it, but I never have. Basically, it's a loophole, since it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to define what the term means or even whether it has any limits at all. You could ask the Attorney General's office. They're really only allowed to send out a snide email reply that they don't give advice to the peons, but sometimes you luck out and get one of the low-level employees who care. I sent in a request for info on a law regarding knives once and got back the standard reply plus two pages that began with "Thus, you must not consider the following to be legal advice, but a simple discussion of the issues."

2. In most cases, the federal Constitution is binding on the states as well at least insofar as the Bill of Rights is concerned. As I understand it, it was not always this way, but the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is interpreted as "incorporating" the protections of the BOR into state law--since, if a state refuses its citizens the right to free speech, for instance, they are not being afforded equal protection under the law as compared to the people in the next state over.
HOWEVER (there's always a however if it involves guns) the 2nd has never been "incorporated" in such a way. Again, this is my understanding only, but I believe it is the only one of the original ten amendments to be ignored in this fashion. If it were treated the same as the First Amendment, then it would be illegal for Chicago to ban guns just as surely as it is now illegal for Chicago to make it a misdemeanor to criticize the Daley family. It is not, however, and the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to hear any case in which they could have resolved this difference. On boards like this one the general opinion is that the Justices know they'll either have to rule in our favor or come up with something as tortuous as their abortion rulings to justify "what they know in their hearts is right for society." No one at the Court wants a repetition of that mess.

3. All is not lost! Christopher Morley, an activist with Concealed Carry, Inc. in Oak Brook, is making plans right now for a "Project Ohio" lawsuit. The plan is for Christopher, having set up the proper legal help, to get himself arrested for carrying as an act of civil disobedience. Then we will defend him on the grounds that no matter what "the police power" really means, the Constitution clearly states that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Even if "the police power" allows for fairly widespread infringements like may-issue, it can't possibly mean that the RKBA can be denied entirely, as is now the case. If you go to http://www.concealcarry.org there should be information about Morley's case and an address to send his lawyer a donation if you wish. I don't know either Morley or John Birch, the head of CCI, as personal friends or anything, but both have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of all of us. Last winter when we met at John's house we found out Chris had been fired from his job because his political activities were "too controversial" and "scared" coworkers. NOT anything said in the workplace, mind you, but the fact that he would occasionally appear at a rally or press conference and would give interviews in favor of CCW.

Morley also suffers from, I believe, Cerebral Palsy. Though a mild form, it forces him to walk with a cane and precludes running or hand-to-hand combat. In other words, he makes any argument about "need" for a gun irrelevent because no anti wants to attack him on it.

There's a thread here somewhere about Project Ohio, but without the search function, good luck. As soon as the search function is back, search for John Birch or Morley and you should find it easily.

 

[Stoli&Cranberry]

Interesting you mentioned knives..

I too was looking for laws concerning laws on what knives are legal to carry in Illinois. I specifically wanted to know what types and length of knives were legal to have in your personal vehicle and how they needed to be stored or if they could be out in the open. The laws on this matter that I have read only mention carrying knives on your person, but didn't mention inside vehicles. I think I may be more a criminal with knives than my guns.


Any info you can give me?

 

[Kingcreek]

Its been awhile since I read the text but IL law on knives is quite vague and poorly written. It allows the law enforcement and prosecution folks to apply it as they see fit. Generally, it is used in conjunction with other criminal charges. If interpreted literally in its broadest sense it would be illegal to buy a kitchen knife at the hardware store and bring it to your home.
Most of the time it is just ignored.
I have asked several LEOs about their understanding and enforcement of the existing knife laws and other than autos(switchblades) its a very grey area.

 

[yankytrash]

Here's a little something to completely confuse you, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, widely accepted by the legal proffession across the nation for legal terminology definition:

Police Power:
The power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited (as by constitutional provision).

In definitions such as this, my lawyer usually tells me to get to the basis of the definition. In this case, I'm afraid that's the part that states, "The power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction...". I'm no lawyer, but that's my take on this.

Although, according to 7th Circuit Court opinions, the term "police power" only seems to come up when "there is large discretion under the police power to make instantaneous judgment calls based on the de facto situations to protect members of the public from their own conduct." (7th Cir Ct, No. 96-3593, JOHN D. POTTS v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Indiana)

Also, let's not forget this worthy court opinion, again from the 7th, but WADE v. BYLES:

Plaintiff correctly asserts that Byles was employed to provide security for CHA residents and was thereby authorized to carry a handgun, arrest people for criminal trespass pending arrival of the police, and use deadly force in self-defense. Although all of these powers have been traditionally exercised by the sovereign via the police, none has been exclusively reserved to the police. See, e.g., 725 ILCS 5/107-3 (providing for citizens' arrests); Spencer, 864 F.2d at 1380 (noting that powers of arrest and self defense are not exclusively governmental functions); Carey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 823 F.2d 1402, 1404 (10th Cir. 1987) (holding citizen's arrest does not constitute state action); White v. Scrivner Corp., 594 F.2d 140, 142-43 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that detaining suspected shoplifter is not an exclusive state function).

There are many 7th Circuit Court cases that, although they are not specifically argued for the definition of "police powers", mention the meanings of the term "police power", all relating only to the powers of the actual police force, whose duty is to uphold the law, not make the law.

Therefore, in my opinion, legislators imposing laws in regards to "the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be deemed as a legislative power, thus out of their jurisdiction. Unconstitutional, mesays.

Definitely worth fighting.